On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Bill Nottingham <[email protected]> wrote:
OK. Let's take this to the simple and logical conclusion. A signed
filesystem image containing both GPL and non-GPL code. From your
point A, this is a derived work.
I claim the signature is derived from the GPLed bits, yes. Whether
that's a derived work, in the legal sense, I'm not qualified to say.
it's also derived from the non-GPLed bits as well.
so if it were a derived work in a legal sense (nessasary for your
argument to have any legal meaning) then it's now illegal to make and
distribute a checksum of a CD that contains software with incompatible
licenses.
And I claim that, in the case of TiVO, it is not only a functional
piece of the system that's derived from GPLed code and missing the
corresponding sources, but also it's being used to impose restrictions
on the exercise of the freedoms that the GPL is designed to protect.
And these conditions are what make it a bad thing, and that deviate,
if not from the legal conditions, at least from the spirit of the
license.
you keep claiming this, but other people claim you are wrong. what good do
your claims do (why are your claims about what's in the spirit of the
license and what's not any more valid than anyone else's?)
David Lang
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
